I leave the front and back porch lights on all night. The back light probably isn't necessary, but I don't like the thought of not having the front light on. I don't live in a bad area or anything, but like Six Five said, a crook is a lot more likely to target the house that doesn't have their light on. Much easier to get inside undetected that way...
Stupid Homeowers Question
- Thread starter Mully
- Start date
- Mar 19, 2006
- 38,386
- 450
- 83
- 74
- Mar 19, 2006
- 38,386
- 450
- 83
- 74
- Mar 19, 2006
- 38,386
- 450
- 83
- 74
I gave up trying to keep it perfect a couple years ago..
same kids who trample my lawn and beat the hell out of my lattace trim on the fence are the children of the don't give a shit parents who swill beer every weekend and tell lies about the work they plan to do in and around their home..
so instead of the work getting done they play golf and brag about who has the best guns and the most ammo..
and their home still looks like shit and their kids are still fucking brats.
I just laugh at their lazy drunk ass now..
and then point to the real deal on the corner lot in the cul de sac.
same kids who trample my lawn and beat the hell out of my lattace trim on the fence are the children of the don't give a shit parents who swill beer every weekend and tell lies about the work they plan to do in and around their home..
so instead of the work getting done they play golf and brag about who has the best guns and the most ammo..
and their home still looks like shit and their kids are still fucking brats.
I just laugh at their lazy drunk ass now..
and then point to the real deal on the corner lot in the cul de sac.
Motion sensors, Lab that barks like hell when anything gets around the house, and a stash of guns left over from y2k prep:bigun:
- Mar 19, 2006
- 38,386
- 450
- 83
- 74
for those of us who have seen your home via the earth satellite
that moat you have should keep you well protected
the satellite view of my house is 5 years old and way out dated. that's IF you get the real woodland ridge, that fedex ground and half the time usps can't get straight.
- Mar 19, 2006
- 38,386
- 450
- 83
- 74
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...htm+Social+Darwinism&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
What is Social Darwinism?
Herbert Spencer, a 19th century philosopher, promoted the idea of Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is an application of the theory of natural selection to social, political, and economic issues. In its simplest form, Social Darwinism follows the mantra of "the strong survive," including human issues. This theory was used to promote the idea that the white European race was superior to others, and therefore, destined to rule over them.
At the time that Spencer began to promote Social Darwinism, the technology, economy, and government of the "White European" was advanced in comparison to that of other cultures. Looking at this apparent advantage, as well as the economic and military structures, some argued that natural selection was playing out, and that the race more suited to survival was winning. Some even extended this philosophy into a micro-economic issue, claiming that social welfare programs that helped the poor and disadvantaged were contrary to nature itself. Those who reject any and all forms of charity or governmental welfare often use arguments rooted in Social Darwinism.
At its worst, the implications of Social Darwinism were used as scientific justification for the Holocaust. The Nazis claimed that the murder of Jews in World War II was an example of cleaning out the inferior genetics. Many philosophers noted evolutionary echoes in Hitler's march to exterminate an entire race of people. Various other dictators and criminals have claimed the cause of Social Darwinism in carrying out their acts. Even without such actions, Social Darwinism has proven to be a false and dangerous philosophy.
Scientists and evolutionists maintain that this interpretation is only loosely based on Darwin's theory of natural selection. They will admit to an obvious parallel between Darwin's theory of Natural Selection and Spencer's beliefs. In nature, the strong survive and those best suited to survival will out-live the weak. According to Social Darwinism, those with strength (economic, physical, technological) flourish and those without are destined for extinction.
It is important to note that Darwin did not extend his theories to a social or economic level, nor are any credible evolutionists subscribing to the theories of Social Darwinism. Herbert Spencer's philosophy is only loosely based on the premises of Darwin's work.
However, according to evolutionary theory, nature is a "kill-or-be-killed" system. Those that cannot keep up are either left behind or cut off. If evolution, through chance, is solely responsible for life as we now know it, why should that process be countered? If "survival of the fittest" or "kill or be killed" cannot apply in what we define as "decent society," then, which is wrong, society or evolution? If neither, then how do we explain morality, charity, and compassion? Why drain resources from the strong to support the weak? Certainly, we should be charitable and help those in need.
Though Darwin did not promote Social Darwinism, basic evolutionary theory raises some nagging questions.
Learn More about Darwin's Theory of Evolution!
What is Social Darwinism?
Herbert Spencer, a 19th century philosopher, promoted the idea of Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is an application of the theory of natural selection to social, political, and economic issues. In its simplest form, Social Darwinism follows the mantra of "the strong survive," including human issues. This theory was used to promote the idea that the white European race was superior to others, and therefore, destined to rule over them.
At the time that Spencer began to promote Social Darwinism, the technology, economy, and government of the "White European" was advanced in comparison to that of other cultures. Looking at this apparent advantage, as well as the economic and military structures, some argued that natural selection was playing out, and that the race more suited to survival was winning. Some even extended this philosophy into a micro-economic issue, claiming that social welfare programs that helped the poor and disadvantaged were contrary to nature itself. Those who reject any and all forms of charity or governmental welfare often use arguments rooted in Social Darwinism.
At its worst, the implications of Social Darwinism were used as scientific justification for the Holocaust. The Nazis claimed that the murder of Jews in World War II was an example of cleaning out the inferior genetics. Many philosophers noted evolutionary echoes in Hitler's march to exterminate an entire race of people. Various other dictators and criminals have claimed the cause of Social Darwinism in carrying out their acts. Even without such actions, Social Darwinism has proven to be a false and dangerous philosophy.
Scientists and evolutionists maintain that this interpretation is only loosely based on Darwin's theory of natural selection. They will admit to an obvious parallel between Darwin's theory of Natural Selection and Spencer's beliefs. In nature, the strong survive and those best suited to survival will out-live the weak. According to Social Darwinism, those with strength (economic, physical, technological) flourish and those without are destined for extinction.
It is important to note that Darwin did not extend his theories to a social or economic level, nor are any credible evolutionists subscribing to the theories of Social Darwinism. Herbert Spencer's philosophy is only loosely based on the premises of Darwin's work.
However, according to evolutionary theory, nature is a "kill-or-be-killed" system. Those that cannot keep up are either left behind or cut off. If evolution, through chance, is solely responsible for life as we now know it, why should that process be countered? If "survival of the fittest" or "kill or be killed" cannot apply in what we define as "decent society," then, which is wrong, society or evolution? If neither, then how do we explain morality, charity, and compassion? Why drain resources from the strong to support the weak? Certainly, we should be charitable and help those in need.
Though Darwin did not promote Social Darwinism, basic evolutionary theory raises some nagging questions.
Learn More about Darwin's Theory of Evolution!
just bustin balls, just dont see how anyone could leave their doors unlocked now days.
